Friday, January 15, 2016

Pope Francis is to visit the Jewish Left synagogue on Sunday after the Vatican recently issued a controversial and heretical document1.The controversial document did not state that Nostra Aetate 4 says Catholics are the new people of God, the Elect.The Church is a continuation of the Jewish religion.Neither did the document state that Vatican Council II indicates all Jews, like other non Catholics need faith and baptism for salvation (AG 7, LG 14).

“Our meeting,” Rome Rabbi Riccardo Di Segni told the Catholic newspaper L’Avvenire, “aims to convey a very topical, important and urgent message — that belonging to a faith, a religion, should not be a cause of hostility, hatred and violence, but that it is possible to build a peaceful coexistence, based on respect and cooperation.”

Rabbi Segni is remembered for objecting to the Good Friday Prayer for the Conversion of the Jews,he also opposed Mel Gibson's film The Passion of Jesus Christ and he objected to the presence of a Catholic archbishop at an inter faith meeting, since that Archbishop had converted into the Catholic Church from Judaism.

Supported by Israel's military and political power the rabbi has been telling Catholics what they are permitted to believe and what will be acceptable to the Jewish Left whom he represents.Along with Rabbi Lara he has visited Vatican offices and the Urbaniana university warning them about Catholic mission it was reported in the newspapers.Their visit was supported by members of a Jewish organisation associated with Freemasonry.

Rabbis Segni and Lara also visited the office of Cardinal Bagnasco, at the Rome Vicariate. The cardinal had to issue an official statement from the Vicariate saying there will no mission to Jews. The rabbis would never dare make this appeal in a Muslim state.

No pope has received permission to visit an Orthoodox rabbis synagogue, who opposes abortion and homosexuality and other pro- Satanic values supported by the Jewish Left.Rabbis who opposed abortion and who were Rome were unable to get permission to meet Pope Benedict.The ADL and the liberal rabbis it is learnt would not allow it.

Rabbi Segni has been supporting anti-Semitic laws, which are pro-Jewish Left, and which target people who criticize the Jewish Left.These laws created by the ADL whom the rabbi supports, are being used as a whip in pontifical Catholic universities to control and change Catholic theology.

Catholics are afraid to affirm the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus in a rational and traditional way. They will be accused of being anti-Semitic and the Vatican will be forced to penalise a priest or even a bishop, who speaks the truth on what Catholics really believe on a subject opposed by the liberal rabbis, who do not represent all Jews as they claim to do.

A Catholic bishop in the North of Italy who said that the Jewish Left were responsible for the reaction of the German people during the Holocaust was asked to retract his statement by Rabbi Rosen.

Similarly when someone online listed the names of the Jewish professors at the La Sapienza university, a criminal court was filed against this unknown person.

Recently it was reported that Radio Islam in Italy was being criticised for being anti-Semitic since they listed the number of Jewish businessmen in Italy.This was considered offensive.

There can be no dialogue with the Jewish Left since they are constantly using the anti-Semitic law to penalise what is not acceptable to them.Even chaplains at the Catholic universities in Rome are afraid to speak the truth about the Faith.

The Jewish Left have set up ecumenical chairs and fellowships at Catholic universities and the goal seems the creation of a future one world religion in which Catholics will have to give up their traditional beliefs and doctrine.

A reformed rabbi who teaches ecumenism at the Angelicum University in Rome once called up New Catholic, the editor at the website Rorate Caeili. The rabbi objected to some comments on an error of the International Theologiocal Commission which was posted by me. After a few days Rorate Caeili pulled down those comments on extra ecclesiam nulla salus and Vatican Council II, mentioning the phone call he received from the rabbi.

Hundreds of journalists have received their accreditation for the Sunday visit and they will project the same propaganda which will appear in the main line leftist controlled media which censures news of Orthodox Jews or Jews opposed to Zionism.The newspapers are pro Jewish Left and fiercely anti-Catholic.They are also know for the promotion of pro Satan morals.

Can you say indifference? Can you say kumbayah? Aging hippie? Materialist?

When I watched this, aside from feeling an enormous sickness in the pit of my stomach, my biggest sensation was one of profound embarrassment. Embarrassment for the Pope and hangers on who produced this worldly abortion. Disgust was another emotion.

It’s profoundly disgusting to see the Pope elevate heinously false religions and disaffected sects to any kind of equivalence with the Church. But even more disgusting is his apparent willingness to forget the name Jesus Christ whenever his worldly ambitions necessitate doing so.

Oh, I really enjoy watching the muslim declare his belief in love. Right…….sure thing. Ask any woman in Stockholm, Cologne, Helsinki, or anywhere in the ummah just how much muslim men “love” them some women.

I’m sure most everyone has seen the video already. I don’t think Rorate backed the clock up quite far enough when prognosticating what this pontificate would be like, it’s past 1977 and more like 1968. The very heart of the Revolution, and also a time when the so-called ecumenical movement was really much more vibrant and a graver threat than it is today. Obviously, there seems an effort afoot to recreate those “glory days.”

Louie Verricchio produced a new set of subtitles for the video to produce something that I think is, sadly, much more accurate:

“I enjoy the esteem of men, honoring their false gods and encouraging their rejection of the One True Faith” Whether one believes this is the Pope’s deliberate intent, or not, practically speaking, can this be denied?

Do you find it too strong when Verricchio said Pope Francis denies Jesus Christ? But isn’t ecumenism/interreligious dialogue as it is practiced by the progressive wing more or less predicated on that denial?

Look, this kind of worldly pap has been going on since Vatican II, there were these three things called Assisi, after all, but the really difficult to stomach aspect is this new video format all the Pope’s prayer intentions will be publicized in. If the prayer intention had been merely verbal, it would have been banal and forgettable, but in video format it becomes unforgivably worldly, cheap, and cloying.

Much more of this kind of thing to come as the year unfolds, I fear. The papacy is being remade in ways it may be impossible to undo, short of a true saint/great miracle.

Look, I know for some readers this stuff is beyond old hat. I know they are past done with the entirety of what might be called the institutional Church. But there are many more who haven’t grasped the nature of the crisis. I will continue to write for them, since I was one of them myself not long ago.

I do not claim to know how each person specfically will be judged by God. I do not and cannot know their state after death according to my personal ability or judgement.

I accept the baptism of desire like the St. Benedict Centers and believe it must be followed with the baptism of water.This was also the position of Fr.Leonard Feeney, the saints and popes.

I reject the baptism of desire as excluding the baptism of water and AS BEING KNOWN.

As a speculative case, if you want to believe that since God is all powerful and can choose to do what he wants and so can save a person without the baptism of water O.K, but you cannot speculate and suggest that you know of any particular case. Neither can you speculate that St. Emerentiana or the Good Thief were one of these cases. You cannot, since no one saw them in Heaven without the baptism of water. So the original person who claimed that St. Emerentiana or St. Victor etc were in Heaven without the baptism of water, SPECULATED.That's all.

_______________________

Our positions (You and I) which are Church teaching

Lionel:

It is meaningless to refer to 'Church teaching' any more on this subject, since the present magisterium contradicts the magisterium of the past.It is the difference between Cushing and Feeney, extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS) without exceptions and EENS with exceptions, Vatican Council II with exceptions to EENS and Vatican Council II without exceptions to EENS.

It is unpleasant to say all this but the difference is brought out by Church doctrine itself. I say all this based on Church doctrine and reason, faith and reason.

______________________

...every person while alive must be taught in charity and love that there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church and that they must remain, return or enter the Church in order to be saved. Baptism of desire, Baptism of Blood and Invincible Ignorance are completely irrelevant to what both of our catechesis would be in in our teaching to any and all individuals that we would encounter.

Lionel:

Agreed!

______________________

But take your quote today, " There is no baptism of desire without the baptism of water" That is wrong.

Lionel:

There is no known baptism of desire without the baptism of water. Of course you agree with me here. This is something obvious.

If there was a baptism of desire without the baptism of water no one would know of any such case, no one would be able to see such a person in 1808 when the Baltimore Catechism was written nor in 1949 when the Letter of the Holy Office was issued.

So how can any one speculate that there was a baptism of desire without the baptism of water and then place this speculation as an exception to EENS.

The theologians who did this were dishonest, if they did it intentionally.

_______________________

With this line of thinking you have crossed the pale of death and told God Himself that after a person dies if they attained Salvation by Baptism of Desire, Baptism of Blood or was in a state of sanctity that was pleasing to God while invincibly ignorant that God must baptism them with water.

Lionel:

I am following the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. This was how the dogma was interpreted by St., Robert Bellarmine, St. Francis Xavier and the Jesuit missionaries and this is how the dogma is not interpreted by the present Jesuits, including Pope Francis.

_______________________

That is heresy pure and simple. Your attack on countless Saints and popes of past generations on this matter is sinful. God is not bound by His sacraments.

We could not even begin to grasp what God knows of each persons condition or lack thereof of sanctity. Your known and unknown thesis of attaining salvation is valid only in so far as it is possible while a person is alive and under the Church's influence to catechize them correctly on EENS Your coupling of this after a person dies is your undoing.

Lionel:

Yes it refers to persons living. They need to formally enter the Church to avoid Hell. The Church's past magisterium, teaches that after a person dies, he goes to Hell without the baptism of water and Catholic faith.This is the teaching of the one, true Church,inspired by the Holy Spirit. It is inspired by God and refers to Truth, objective reality.

Unfortunately, the Church changed their understanding of objective reality with the Letter of the Holy Office 1949.

______________________

It is Church teaching that a person may achieve Heaven by BOB< BOD or in a state of sanctity pleasing to God BUT these conditions are not for us to presume, advocate or most of all OFFER to anyone as a possibility of salvation while they are alive.

Lionel:

Before the Council of Trent the Church taught that all needed the baptism of water for salvation and that if a person died with the baptism of desire, it was an opinion, and not a dogma, he could , hopefully, be saved since he wished for the baptism of water which God would provide for him.

Before the Baltimore Catechism (1808) the Church did not teach that the baptism of desire was equivalent to the baptism of water.It did not suggest that the baptism of desire was a Sacrament.

Any way, we do not know of any baptism of desire case, with or without the baptism of water, in 2016. So it is not a known exception to the dogma.

Neither do we know of any one saved with the baptism of blood, invincible ignorance, seeds of the Word and imperfect communion with the Church and who did not receive the baptism of water, so it is not an exception, or even relevant to the dogma EENS.

Why is the baptism of desire an issue for you?

For me it is was a magisterial heresy.It was a heresy of the contemporary magisterium. The heresy was made official in 1949 when, with an inter office letter among bishops, a dogma of the Church was discarded. The Church then chose the letter instead of the dogma.

____________________

Yes you are correct in that most clerics get this wrong BUT as in a court of law you cannot continually say they infer heresy unless they say so explicitly which most cleverly avoid doing.

Lionel:

For me the clerics in 1949 Rome and Boston were in heresy since there was no baptism of desire case without the baptism of water. There were none known to them and none in past history.So this was an innovation. It rejected the traditional interpretation of the dogma EENS.This was heresy. It has also changed the Nicene Creed and is a rejection of the Athanasius Creed.Archbishop Lefebvre and the SSPX unknowingly accepted it.

-Lionel Andrades

_____________________________

False reasoning from the Letter is all over Vatican Council II: Abp Lefebvre did not notice it -3

Roberto de Mattei wants the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate( F.I) to be faithful to Tradition while he is not affirming the Feeneyite interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS) for whatever personal reason.

Like the rest of the SSPX he wants to be faithful to the magisterium of Pope Pius XII, which has made a factual error.He does not criticize Pius XII but corrects Pope Francis whom he suggests (correctly) is in heresy.

If he corrected the magisterium of Pius XII he would be in opposition to the rest of the SSPX and there will be penalties imposed by the political Left, on this professor of Church history at the Legionaries of Christ, European University in Rome(EUR).

He would like Pope Francis to issue a correction but he will not say clearly that he affirms the rigorist interpretation of the dogma EENS. Instead he will say that the baptism of desire refers to cases without the baptism of water,who are personally known in 2016 or in past history.

Someone on earth, the Italian professor will say, saw these persons in Heaven saved without the baptism of water.Personally, he and many in the SSPX know that we humans cannot see any one in Heaven without the baptism of water.Yet he must proclaim this irrationality.In public he cannot affirm the Feeneyite version of the dogma EENS.Since the Freemasons in the Church will accuse him of being in heresy as he now suggests in his article that Pope Francis is in heresy.

Mattei has to get on his knees on this issue and say falsely to his employer and opponents in the Church, that not every one needs to enter the Church and the baptism of desire is an exception to the dogma.

In this way he assures the liberal cardinals that he also has accepted this heresy and should be given permission to retain his professorship at the Legionaries of Christ university and maintain his media ownership and professional interests.He will not be harassed.

In the meantime the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate must pretend that Vatican Council II is a beak with the dogma EENS. He of course is not going to tell them that they must interpret Lumen Gentium 16 as being invisible instead of visible, hypothetical instead of objective and explicit.He himself inteprets LG 16 as referring to seen in the flesh cases, of people in Rome or elsewhere, saved without the baptism of water.So he remains politically correct with the heretics in the Vatican.The good professor is not going to tell the Franciscans of the Immaculate, who offer the Traditional Latin Mass, that they must affirm the Feeneyite interpretation of the dogma, since, upon this dogma depends the old ecclesiology.Instead he will keep quiet when the Traditional Latin Mass is permitted only with the new ecclesiology.The new ecclesiology is based on the objective error in the Fr.Leonard Feeney case, during the pontificate of Pius XII.Why should he do so, he may ask himself? Others in the SSPX keep silent. Fr.Francois Laisney, John Salza, Rorate Caeili correspondents, the SSPX bishops,the SSPX Resistance priests and bishop and lay theologians and bloggers associated with the SSPX keep quiet on this issue.It's controversial.It would be a criticism of Archbishop Lefebvre's religious formaltion long before Vatican Council II.When Prof. Roberto de Mattei wrote his report on 'The Pope's Video' he could have clearly said that every one needs to formerly enter the Church ( with faith and baptism -AG 7, LG 14) and there are no known exceptions in the present times or in the past.He could have pointed our to the video not mentioning this. Instead he was vague just like Dominus Iesus, which he quoted in the article.Dominus Iesus was written with the magisterium assuming that there were known cases of the baptism of desire without the baptism of water.It assumes there people saved who were not formal members of the Church. This shows Dominius Iesus has accepted the heretical and irrationalchoseCushingite theology.It has rejected traditional Feeneyism in the interpretation of the dogma EENS and Vatican Council II.-Lionel Andrades

Roberto de Matteo wrote a piece on the Pope's Video and heresy and he could not affirm the Feeneyite version of the dogma EENS nor could he state that the video contradicts the Feeneyite version of the dogma